www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Churches & Rites

Western or Latin Church and Rites

The Latin Church and Rite are (as mentioned earlier) the largest of the Churches and Rites of the Catholic Church.

The Latin Rite presently includes a single formal 'Usage', termed the Anglican Usage, which is ordinarily permitted to be served in only certain desgnated parishes in the United States.

An Indult exists for the celebration of the Mass in Latin according to the Tridentine ritual, a form that predates the Novus Ordo, presently the normative manner of its service.

There is also an ancient and very limited Indult in existence for the so-called �Glagolitic Mass�, which is said in an ancient Slavonic language that is not a vernacular tongue. (The term is a misnomer, as �Glagolitic� is the alphabet in which the liturgical service books are written, rather than the tongue in which the Mass is said). The service of the Glagolitic Mass is specific to Latin Rite Croat Catholics.

Neither Indult is properly termed a �usage�, although the Tridentine is frequently so styled.

Within the Latin Church, there are also three Rites that are ordinarily limited in their celebration to certain geographic locales and to only specific churches within those. These are the:

• Ambrosian Rite

• Bragan Rite

• Mozarabic Rite

Other former Rites and/or Uses of the Latin Church, including (but not limited to) the Celtic, Eborian, Gallican, Lyonnaise, Parisian, Sarum, Trier, and York were effectively suppressed by the order of Pius V in 1570, which precluded the celebration of any Rite which had not been in continuous use for two centuries prior to that time. Remnants of some of these survive in the so-called Lyonnaise Use and elements of local praxis peculiar to the Sarum, particularly as regards non-liturgical ceremonials associated with the Sacrament of Marriage.

Additionally, there are Religious Order Rites within the Latin Church, not all of which (e.g., Benedictine Rite) are related to the service of the Liturgy. The service of these Rites (to the extent that they relate to the celebration of the Liturgy or administration of the Sacraments) is restricted to clergy of the respective religious orders and, in some cases, to certain feast-days or houses of the order to which they are applicable. Some of these Rites are no longer extant, having been suppressed by the Orders themselves in the aftermath of changes that would have been required to them in the aftermath of liturgical reforms enacted as a result of Vatican II. The most well-known of the Religious Order Rites are:

• Benedictine Rite

• Carmelite Rite (or Rite of the Holy Sepulchre)

• Carthusian Rite

• Cistercian Rite

• Dominican Rite

• Franciscan Rite

• Norbertine Rite (or Premonstratensian Rite)

• Servite Rite

Many years,

Neil

This may help clear up some of those listed above who are listed as having their own rites of Mass or of the Divine Office only, like the OSBs. On is some most cases use to have a distincticive rite of Mass before Vat II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Rite

A few criticisms:

A Major Archbishop enjoys the honorific title of Beatitude (cf. Archieraticon, published by the Holy See in "1973"; the same is true of Eastern Orthodox hierarchs of similar rank (the Archbishop of Athens, the Archbishop of Cyprus, the Metropolitan of Warsaw, the Metropolitan of Prague, and perhaps the Archbishop of Mount Sinai - as well as the Metropolitan of the OCA).

The Chief Hierarch of the Syro-Malankarese Church uses the title of Catholicos.

"Recension" is a word used in connection with Liturgy only by Ruthenians.

Fr. Serge

Abouna,

Bless, Father.

You're absolutely correct; that is an oversight on my part that has been repeated, unobserved, for a long time now. I'll correct in my master copy for the next time (if ever) that I post this again.

You had me worried for a minute. It's there, disputed though it is.

Generally true, however, there remains a level of distinction in the praxis of some of the Churches which falls beneath that of Tradition, but is more than a Usage. So, Rescension it must be, unless/until someone offers me a better choice by which to term the differentiation. I am always open to suggestions .

I have to admit relief. When I saw your response and read the first line, I cringed - anticipating much more.

Pavel,

The Wikipedia piece to which you linked is a cut and paste of the material from the 1913 on-line edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia piece on
the same topic. At a quick glance, I don't see any updated info in it. A few of the Orders - the Dominicans come to mind - retain limited use of their distinctive Rite, with modifications to effect conformance with the directives of Vatican II.

Many years,

Neil

Hi Neil,

First I'd like to say that was an excellent post -- I think it gets better every time.

Second, I was wondering if you could elaborate on:

I hadn't heard that before.
Thanks,
Peter.

Excellent point. I, too have often felt that the term �sui iuris� is something of a misnomer, at least when it is applied to churches which have neither autocephalous (i.e. patriarchal) nor autonomous (i.e. major archepiscopal) status.

You are also quite right that the principle of �canonical territory� in Catholicism -- even with respect to patriarchal and major archepiscopal churches -- is very different from the principle of �canonical territory� in Orthodoxy. The main difference, it seems to me, is that in Orthodoxy, if Church A is operating in the canonical territory of Church B, then Church B has the right to regulate some aspects of what Church A can do there; in Catholicism, however, if Church A is operating in the canonical territory of Church B, then ROME has the right to regulate some aspects of what Church A can do there, and Church B can only make suggestions in that regard. (Of course, that�s in very broad strokes � I�m not going to try to detail what �some aspects� means in each case.)

In particular, then, the pope never needs permission to do anything in an Eastern church�s territory � though, of course, he might choose to ask permission.

God bless,
Peter.

Peter,

Thank you for the kind words. One always hopes that it has improved because the danger, in continually adding to something, is that it ultimately becomes too detailed and ponderous.

As to your request for elaboration - the Greeks had a substantial influence in southern Italy and Sicily from early times. Facilitation of commerce led, naturally, to some Greek traders and merchants taking up residence in Italy and bringing family with them. Inevitably, they prevailed on their own clergy to emigrate, so as to provide pastoral care in the language and ritual form to which they were accustomed. The Greek presence was increased by successful military activity directed against the same geographic area by the Byzantine Emperor in the mid-6th century.

Eventually, by about the 8th century, there were two identifiable bodies of faithful in the area who were following the Byzantine Rite - true Italo-Byzantines (ethnic Italians who adopted the Byzantine Rite) and Italo-Greek Byzantines (transplanted Greeks and Italians who intermarried with the Greek community). The two communities were, however, from all that I've read, fully integrated in their worship, etc. At the time, despite the fact that Byzantine ritual praxis was dominant, ecclesiastical control remained with Rome.

During the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Leo III, in the 8th century, the areas were removed from Rome's jurisdiction to that of Constantinople. That remained the case for about 4 centuries, during which time there were at least 2 Metropolitan Sees and a couple dozen Eparchies in place in the area, as well as reportedly 100s of monasteries.

When the Normans took up the task of driving the Byzantines out of the region, in the 12th century, the canonical authority reverted to Rome. From then on, latinization became rampant. Every Byzantine hierarch who reposed was replaced by a Latin and the monasteries were either suppressed or abandoned in the face of advancing Arabic armies seeking to push the Normans northward and establish a stronghold in the area. (Saint Nilus' foundation of the Monastery at Grottaferrata, just outside Rome itself, happened as a result of flight to the north by him and his accompanying monks.)

By then, of course, the Schism was well underway and further ties to Constantinople by jurisdictions in the Pope's back yard would have been near impossible to maintain under any circumstance. The Italo-Byzantines effectively disappeared as a discernible body during this time, being subsumed into the remnant Italo-Greek ecclesia, represented by parishes scattered through the regions.

That was pretty much the situation until the arrival of the Albanian immigrants in the 15th century*. The southern Albanians, primarily Orthodox, took solace in the familiar liturgical forms of the surviving Italo-Greeks and because of numbers became the dominant Byzantines in the South, effectively Catholicized by circumstance. However, the Church's future was bleak; Latin hierarchs had no use for the Byzantine Rite and clergy were few and far between, with little hope to replace those who reposed.

At the dawn of the 17th century, Rome finally appointed an episcopus ordinans (ordaining bishop), but didn't afford the Rite anything approaching parity of status with the Latins until the mid-18th century. The two existing jurisdictions (Lungro in Calabria and Piani in Sicily) weren't erected until the 20th century and both are what used to be termed "exempt" jurisdictions - responsible directly to Rome. The Monastery, last remnant jurisdiction of the Italo-Greeks (the eparchies are, technically Italo-Albanian), is a suffragn jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Diocese of Rome.

Hope that informations answers your inquiry. You can get a bit more detail at the site of the Society of Our Lady of Grace [byzantines.net] or from Father Robson\'s piece on the Church [cnewa.org] at the CNEWA site.

*My friend and brother, Andrew Rubis, our resident Albanian expert, had a wonderful series of posts on this particular matter a few years ago, which should be retrievable by a search.

Many years,

Neil

As there is no western Patriarchate. There seems to be some doubt if there ever was one. I suppose what it was best defined in what it was not. It was not in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Magna Grecia or greater Greece is southern Italy and Sicily. Later Eastern Roman Empire stuff is not confined to the south and includes much more of Italy all the way up north. The Grottaferrata monastic community moved north to escape raids along the coast from the Saracens. Boundaries liturgically were not so hard and fast even in Rome. The Normans set the agenda in their realm as to who was a bishops or not. Starting with their mates, bastard sons and then men from Normany of good will.

There is a fresh influx of Greek-Catholics from Eastern Europe (and the Middle East) to Italy. It remains to be seen how relations between the new arrivals and the existing Italo-Greeks will develop.

The institution of the "Greek-Catholic Hierarch in Rome for the conferral of Sacred Orders according to the Byzantine Rite" - in other words, a titular bishop of Nowheresville with no jurisdiction and no particular function except to do ordinations when necessary - survived until relatively recently; I think that Bishop Andrew (Katkov) of the Russian Greek-Catholics was the last person to hold this august position. There is no longer any need or reason for such a prelate to exist: the Italo-Greek bishops are readily accessible, it sometimes happens that one or another of the Greek-Catholic Churches has an Apocrisarius to the Holy See who is a bishop, it sometimes happens that this or that bishop serving in the Roman Curia is a Greek-Catholic bishop - and anyway, it has become the custom for ordinations to take place in the home dioceses of the candidates.

But it would be nice if someone were to compile a list of the hierarchs who held this position over the centuries, with at least a brief history of the matter.

Fr. Serge

I think a Ukrainian bishop did the ordinations after bishop Andrew was not replaced. There was also a Bielorussian who no sooner appointed commenced dying (Eternal memory). Bishop Andrew did find it very difficult to find a purpose other than as an ordination machine. He did try to forge a link with the various communities or Russians all over the world.

Thanks Neil (et at). Just to make sure I understand, you're saying that the Italo-Graeco-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church is not, technically, a church sui iuris (at this time anyhow)?

-Peter.

The abusive treatment of Bishop Andrew is a topic in itself.

But, as I said earlier, there really is no longer any serious reason to maintain a bishop in Rome simply to do ordinations. Bishops are easily available when needed for that purpose.

Fr. Serge

The 2x Italo Albanian Eparchies and the Exarchate of Grottaferratta meet together to discuss their own issues. I would say that is a good enough indicator of their being their own Particular Church. Photos were on the Sicilian Eparchy of Piana's web site. Some particular churches only have one Bishop. Here are 3 hierarchs of 3 juristictions, that are some distance apaprt from each other, meeting together as they have commonality, that marks them out from the Latin diocese they each have as neigbours.

Shlomo Aho Irish Melkite,

We Maronites as well as the Syro-Malankara would be considered Oriental Catholic Churches since our liturgical traditions come from the Churches within that Tradition.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Abouna,

Bless, Father. According to a friend of mine, a Russian Orthodox hieromonk in Italy, relations to date have been rather good.

Quote

The institution of the "Greek-Catholic Hierarch in Rome for the conferral of Sacred Orders according to the Byzantine Rite" - in other words, a titular bishop of Nowheresville with no jurisdiction and no particular function except to do ordinations when necessary - survived until relatively recently; I think that Bishop Andrew (Katkov) of the Russian Greek-Catholics was the last person to hold this august position. There is no longer any need or reason for such a prelate to exist: the Italo-Greek bishops are readily accessible, it sometimes happens that one or another of the Greek-Catholic Churches has an Apocrisarius to the Holy See who is a bishop, it sometimes happens that this or that bishop serving in the Roman Curia is a Greek-Catholic bishop - and anyway, it has become the custom for ordinations to take place in the home dioceses of the candidates

But it would be nice if someone were to compile a list of the hierarchs who held this position over the centuries, with at least a brief history of the matter.

A subject which I would love to tackle, had I the resources at hand to do so. I would agree that Bishop Andrei, memory eternal, was probably the last episcopus ordinans. Others who have held the position in recent history would include Bishops Alexander (Evreinov), Nicholas (Elko)

One much suspects that there was a Melkite bishop there at the end of the 19th century. My theory is based on the otherwise curious fact that Father Nicholas Tolstoy, of blessed memory, was incardinated into the Melkite Church when he presented himself in Rome (1893) to enter into communion with Catholicism from Russian Orthodoxy.

Quote

Originally posted by Pavel Ivanovich:
I think a Ukrainian bishop did the ordinations after bishop Andrew was not replaced. There was also a Bielorussian who no sooner appointed commenced dying (Eternal memory).

I'm unsure about a Ukrainian bishop but Bishop Basil Cristea, of blessed memory, a Byzantine Romanian of the Augustinian order, also had this responsibility during much of the same time as Bishop Andrei. As to the Bielorussian, I'm guessing that you're thinking of Bishop Ceslaus (Sipovich), of blessed memory, although he served in that and other capacities for several years.

Many years,

Neil